6) The Art of War - Sun Tzu. Audiobook. Audible are using an extract from this in their TV adverts and it re-piqued my curiosity enough to illegally download it. Second read for this, a manual for business men who pride themselves on being bastards.

In my opinion the best books written about punk (UK) are the ones written by fans. You get an individual story written with a much more honest account and not someone that just babbles on and on about the sociopolitical and revolutionary aspects.

So many famous writers aproach the subject from this angle Savage/Heylin/Marcus et all and forget to mention how it was simply fun music and a time for young people to express themselves just like all great rock 'n' roll movements do. Every little town here in the UK had it's own punk band from the ones that got no further than playing the local church hall to the ones who made it to the Lyceum and beyond. All this rubbish about how punk changed the world gets on my nerves the changes that punk really made were only seen 10-15 years after the event when people brought up on that music and attitude were then those in a postion of power and had joined the establishment.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

In my opinion the best books written about punk (UK) are the ones written by fans. You get an individual story written with a much more honest account and not someone that just babbles on and on about the sociopolitical and revolutionary aspects.

So many famous writers aproach the subject from this angle Savage/Heylin/Marcus et all and forget to mention how it was simply fun music and a time for young people to express themselves just like all great rock 'n' roll movements do. Every little town here in the UK had it's own punk band from the ones that got no further than playing the local church hall to the ones who made it to the Lyceum and beyond. All this rubbish about how punk changed the world gets on my nerves the changes that punk really made were only seen 10-15 years after the event when people brought up on that music and attitude were then those in a postion of power and had joined the establishment.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

Sure there is nothing wrong with another view or perspective and being there in the moment isn't everything. But wanting something to be something more than what it actually was for those involved is wrong. If you look back on an era and you were the guy up on the roof as you mentioned then you may have the best overall view but if you were never there on the roof in the first place then those first hand accounts are all important.

Too much bullshit is written about punk too much is written about revoulution and situationism etc and it simply wasn't like that for most of us. London is a big place for sure but it isn't the UK. Elitism and snobbery from Jon Savage a writer who many hold in high esteem and nowadays seems to be the written voice on the subject never tells the whole story. He just cherry picks his way through the bits of history that suits his narrative and the bands he feels were important. For every Sex Pistols there was a Lurkers etc etc. Savage had a run in with The Stranglers early on the punk years and ever since that he has written them out of punk altogether. They were a very important band early on '77 - '79. This kind of revisionism is not acceptable to me.

The writers love to harp on about the way punk changed society etc but it didn't change very much at all. Possibly changing fashion would be punks biggest claim. The rest is nostalgic bullshit seen through rose tinted spectacles. Have a look where the UK is now with Brexit and there's very little difference politcally to the days of 1975-76. In fact it it feels like we are heading back there very fast.

In my opinion the best books written about punk (UK) are the ones written by fans. You get an individual story written with a much more honest account and not someone that just babbles on and on about the sociopolitical and revolutionary aspects.

So many famous writers aproach the subject from this angle Savage/Heylin/Marcus et all and forget to mention how it was simply fun music and a time for young people to express themselves just like all great rock 'n' roll movements do. Every little town here in the UK had it's own punk band from the ones that got no further than playing the local church hall to the ones who made it to the Lyceum and beyond. All this rubbish about how punk changed the world gets on my nerves the changes that punk really made were only seen 10-15 years after the event when people brought up on that music and attitude were then those in a postion of power and had joined the establishment.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

Sure there is nothing wrong with another view or perspective and being there in the moment isn't everything. But wanting something to be something more than what it actually was for those involved is wrong. If you look back on an era and you were the guy up on the roof as you mentioned then you may have the best overall view but if you were never there on the roof in the first place then those first hand accounts are all important.

Too much bullshit is written about punk too much is written about revoulution and situationism etc and it simply wasn't like that for most of us. London is a big place for sure but it isn't the UK. Elitism and snobbery from Jon Savage a writer who many hold in high esteem and nowadays seems to be the written voice on the subject never tells the whole story. He just cherry picks his way through the bits of history that suits his narrative and the bands he feels were important. For every Sex Pistols there was a Lurkers etc etc. Savage had a run in with The Stranglers early on the punk years and ever since that he has written them out of punk altogether. They were a very important band early on '77 - '79. This kind of revisionism is not acceptable to me.

The writers love to harp on about the way punk changed society etc but it didn't change very much at all. Possibly changing fashion would be punks biggest claim. The rest is nostalgic bullshit seen through rose tinted spectacles. Have a look where the UK is now with Brexit and there's very little difference politcally to the days of 1975-76. In fact it it feels like we are heading back there very fast.

Don't know what to tell you, really. We all cherry pick, we all tell partial stories. That's just the nature of communication. I've never read any account of punk or anything else and expected or concluded that that was the whole story. It just can't be done. I judge an account primarily based on what it tries to accomplish, not on what I think it should have done.

In my opinion the best books written about punk (UK) are the ones written by fans. You get an individual story written with a much more honest account and not someone that just babbles on and on about the sociopolitical and revolutionary aspects.

So many famous writers aproach the subject from this angle Savage/Heylin/Marcus et all and forget to mention how it was simply fun music and a time for young people to express themselves just like all great rock 'n' roll movements do. Every little town here in the UK had it's own punk band from the ones that got no further than playing the local church hall to the ones who made it to the Lyceum and beyond. All this rubbish about how punk changed the world gets on my nerves the changes that punk really made were only seen 10-15 years after the event when people brought up on that music and attitude were then those in a postion of power and had joined the establishment.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

Sure there is nothing wrong with another view or perspective and being there in the moment isn't everything. But wanting something to be something more than what it actually was for those involved is wrong. If you look back on an era and you were the guy up on the roof as you mentioned then you may have the best overall view but if you were never there on the roof in the first place then those first hand accounts are all important.

Too much bullshit is written about punk too much is written about revoulution and situationism etc and it simply wasn't like that for most of us. London is a big place for sure but it isn't the UK. Elitism and snobbery from Jon Savage a writer who many hold in high esteem and nowadays seems to be the written voice on the subject never tells the whole story. He just cherry picks his way through the bits of history that suits his narrative and the bands he feels were important. For every Sex Pistols there was a Lurkers etc etc. Savage had a run in with The Stranglers early on the punk years and ever since that he has written them out of punk altogether. They were a very important band early on '77 - '79. This kind of revisionism is not acceptable to me.

The writers love to harp on about the way punk changed society etc but it didn't change very much at all. Possibly changing fashion would be punks biggest claim. The rest is nostalgic bullshit seen through rose tinted spectacles. Have a look where the UK is now with Brexit and there's very little difference politcally to the days of 1975-76. In fact it it feels like we are heading back there very fast.

Don't know what to tell you, really. We all cherry pick, we all tell partial stories. That's just the nature of communication. I've never read any account of punk or anything else and expected or concluded that that was the whole story. It just can't be done. I judge an account primarily based on what it tries to accomplish, not on what I think it should have done.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

In my opinion the best books written about punk (UK) are the ones written by fans. You get an individual story written with a much more honest account and not someone that just babbles on and on about the sociopolitical and revolutionary aspects.

So many famous writers aproach the subject from this angle Savage/Heylin/Marcus et all and forget to mention how it was simply fun music and a time for young people to express themselves just like all great rock 'n' roll movements do. Every little town here in the UK had it's own punk band from the ones that got no further than playing the local church hall to the ones who made it to the Lyceum and beyond. All this rubbish about how punk changed the world gets on my nerves the changes that punk really made were only seen 10-15 years after the event when people brought up on that music and attitude were then those in a postion of power and had joined the establishment.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

Sure there is nothing wrong with another view or perspective and being there in the moment isn't everything. But wanting something to be something more than what it actually was for those involved is wrong. If you look back on an era and you were the guy up on the roof as you mentioned then you may have the best overall view but if you were never there on the roof in the first place then those first hand accounts are all important.

Too much bullshit is written about punk too much is written about revoulution and situationism etc and it simply wasn't like that for most of us. London is a big place for sure but it isn't the UK. Elitism and snobbery from Jon Savage a writer who many hold in high esteem and nowadays seems to be the written voice on the subject never tells the whole story. He just cherry picks his way through the bits of history that suits his narrative and the bands he feels were important. For every Sex Pistols there was a Lurkers etc etc. Savage had a run in with The Stranglers early on the punk years and ever since that he has written them out of punk altogether. They were a very important band early on '77 - '79. This kind of revisionism is not acceptable to me.

The writers love to harp on about the way punk changed society etc but it didn't change very much at all. Possibly changing fashion would be punks biggest claim. The rest is nostalgic bullshit seen through rose tinted spectacles. Have a look where the UK is now with Brexit and there's very little difference politcally to the days of 1975-76. In fact it it feels like we are heading back there very fast.

Don't know what to tell you, really. We all cherry pick, we all tell partial stories. That's just the nature of communication. I've never read any account of punk or anything else and expected or concluded that that was the whole story. It just can't be done. I judge an account primarily based on what it tries to accomplish, not on what I think it should have done.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

To be fair, this is exactly why historians always rely on multiple sources and work to acknowledge bias.

A hypothetical scenario: Lots of people are gathered on the street in a neighbourhood. We're asked to describe the nature of the crowd. Who has the best description, those who are on the street in the midst of it all, or those who are on the roof of a tall building nearby? Those who are street level can talk about the mood in their vicinity, the conversations being had, but they're mostly oblivious to what's happening a block away? Or those on the building who can see how packed the overall crowd is, whether there's fighting in different sections, whether the cops are coming, etc? Who has the better description? Well, I'd say neither. Or, rather, it depends on the question being asked. The kind of information you want will dictate which perspective is best. Which is to say that neither the fan account nor the scholarly, political and ideological stuff are inherently superior or inferior. It all depends on the kinds of questions they seek to answer. The tent is as big as you want it to be. But dismissing one style or the other necessarily means losing some detail. This isn't to say that you're cheating yourself by not reading the scholarly stuff—we go where our interests take us—but rejecting out of hand other interpretations that rely on different perspectives and different sets of questions is unfair. We never get a full account of anything, but we can have diverse "true" accounts that seem to contradict each other. It's the demand for singular, "objective" true accounts that trip us up.

Sure there is nothing wrong with another view or perspective and being there in the moment isn't everything. But wanting something to be something more than what it actually was for those involved is wrong. If you look back on an era and you were the guy up on the roof as you mentioned then you may have the best overall view but if you were never there on the roof in the first place then those first hand accounts are all important.

Too much bullshit is written about punk too much is written about revoulution and situationism etc and it simply wasn't like that for most of us. London is a big place for sure but it isn't the UK. Elitism and snobbery from Jon Savage a writer who many hold in high esteem and nowadays seems to be the written voice on the subject never tells the whole story. He just cherry picks his way through the bits of history that suits his narrative and the bands he feels were important. For every Sex Pistols there was a Lurkers etc etc. Savage had a run in with The Stranglers early on the punk years and ever since that he has written them out of punk altogether. They were a very important band early on '77 - '79. This kind of revisionism is not acceptable to me.

The writers love to harp on about the way punk changed society etc but it didn't change very much at all. Possibly changing fashion would be punks biggest claim. The rest is nostalgic bullshit seen through rose tinted spectacles. Have a look where the UK is now with Brexit and there's very little difference politcally to the days of 1975-76. In fact it it feels like we are heading back there very fast.

Don't know what to tell you, really. We all cherry pick, we all tell partial stories. That's just the nature of communication. I've never read any account of punk or anything else and expected or concluded that that was the whole story. It just can't be done. I judge an account primarily based on what it tries to accomplish, not on what I think it should have done.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

To be fair, this is exactly why historians always rely on multiple sources and work to acknowledge bias.

6) The Art of War - Sun Tzu. Audiobook. Audible are using an extract from this in their TV adverts and it re-piqued my curiosity enough to illegally download it. Second read for this, a manual for business men who pride themselves on being bastards.

You rang...

Forgot to post after I watched the Vivienne Westwood film recently. McLaren really was an evil vindictive man.

6) The Art of War - Sun Tzu. Audiobook. Audible are using an extract from this in their TV adverts and it re-piqued my curiosity enough to illegally download it. Second read for this, a manual for business men who pride themselves on being bastards.

You rang...

Forgot to post after I watched the Vivienne Westwood film recently. McLaren really was an evil vindictive man.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

This is getting far afield from the original disagreement but I really hope that you're not suggesting that I endorse fixing evidence or lying by omission. I mean, I teach students this stuff.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

This is getting far afield from the original disagreement but I really hope that you're not suggesting that I endorse fixing evidence or lying by omission. I mean, I teach students this stuff.

I'm not suggesting anything regards to you and how you teach others. Unless your name is Jon Savage. I would like to think if and when you teach others you keep everything as open and as honest as possible and wouldn't dream of omitting valuable facts etc.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

This is getting far afield from the original disagreement but I really hope that you're not suggesting that I endorse fixing evidence or lying by omission. I mean, I teach students this stuff.

I'm not suggesting anything regards to you and how you teach others. Unless your name is Jon Savage. I would like to think if and when you teach others you keep everything as open and as honest as possible and wouldn't dream of omitting valuable facts etc.

Okay, I really don't understand the Jon Savage thing going on here, but this is so past what I was originally interested in discussing, which is the validity of diverse and contradictory co-existing perspectives, that there cannot be one wholistic, true account of anything. So I'll respectfully bow out.

That's not the same thing. I'm not suggesting one writer can tell the whole story but Savage is deliberately omitting valuable evidence. That is wrong. If you are happy accepting that then fair enough that's up to you but it's unacceptable to me. If you write about something historical you owe it to the reader to at least be as factual as possible. Writing out a piece of the story because you don't like it is simply wrong. The same goes for something you invent to embellish the story. Savage was there at the early gigs of The Clash, Sex Pistols etc but then so we're many others and they tell things much differently.

This is getting far afield from the original disagreement but I really hope that you're not suggesting that I endorse fixing evidence or lying by omission. I mean, I teach students this stuff.

I'm not suggesting anything regards to you and how you teach others. Unless your name is Jon Savage. I would like to think if and when you teach others you keep everything as open and as honest as possible and wouldn't dream of omitting valuable facts etc.

Okay, I really don't understand the Jon Savage thing going on here, but this is so past what I was originally interested in discussing, which is the validity of diverse and contradictory co-existing perspectives, that there cannot be one wholistic, true account of anything. So I'll respectfully bow out.

I've already agreed on the point you made about having more than one perspective further up in the thread. My beef was about the more famous writers making the story there own and becoming an authority on the subject. In the case of Savage he debilerately skeewed the truth by omitting facts he simply didn't like. But none of this is really all that important. People will take from a book or story whatever they like and that's fine. I just feel that if you are the one doing the informing then leave nothing out that is valuable to the bigger picture.